WordPress.org

Codex

Talk:Plugins

Contents

Plugins Info or Links

Honestly, I think we need to re-examine the issue of posting links to all of the plugins on this page and let it revert to information. We can have another page that pulls info from the two sites so it is self updating that can be linked to from this page, titled something like "list of plugins available". The links on this page currently go to nothing...pages on the codex not created. So what is the good of that? Do we really want to maintain a whole bunch of pages on every plugin available - that comes and goes and needs fixing....?

Low maintenance would be high on my list with links to sites hosting and get to the info on what are plugins and where to find out how to make your own.

Just my four cents. Lorelle 16:31, 17 Feb 2005 (GMT)

If you can think of a clever way to link to wp-plugins.org (the official repository) and include a tutorial on how to download plugins there, by all means, go for it! MacManX

Comments demoted from top

Cool. So, will plugins be listed anywhere on the codex or will that be the domain of the proposed plugin directory thingamabob being discussed on the wp-hacker list?


I think that the plugin page should be limited to information on how to create them and that there should be links to wp-plugins.org and wp-plugins.net. It will be a HUGE job to try and keep a plugin listing up to date. It is the responsibility of the plugin authors to do this, not the job of the Codex team to do this.

--NuclearMoose 08:03, 3 Jan 2005 (GMT)


Rejoin river of comments

Well, hard to disagree with that. However, I'm left wondering if there's some use we--and by we, I mean in the general sense--can put that gobbed list of plugins from the old wiki. Simon Farine has been doing yeom--64.142.94.171 10:53, 4 Jan 2005 (GMT)an's (if ultimately moot) work at organizing the page. Hmm... -Kaf 08:53, 3 Jan 2005 (GMT)


Hmmm...yeah, I hear ya. Seems a shame to waste all that good work. Will have to see what others say about this...--NuclearMoose 09:46, 3 Jan 2005 (GMT)


One could argue that, in line with the encyclopedia of WordPress knowledge goal, the Plugins list should stay and be maintained. —morganiq 01:05, 4 Jan 2005 (GMT)


It's just that it would be huge job in and of itself, and considering the fact that there are already two sites developed just for this purpose, one of them being directly connected to WordPress, it would seem to make it more complex even for plugin developers. Many of them will have their plugins on their own site, then likely on both of the plugin sites, and then listed here...it's a lot of places for them to manage information on their own work.

--NuclearMoose 08:37, 4 Jan 2005 (GMT)


You could get fancy and have this page pull from one of those sites... Just an idea.

-- Jeff Minard 02:52, 4 Jan 2005 (PST)

I agree that codex isn't the best place for this. Unfortunately, the functionality of the two other sites aren't the same, either. One provides source control, documentation, and issue tracking, and the other provides a distribution point. The former doesn't have a way (that I can tell) to package plugins for friendly deployment, and the latter offers no way to communicate between user and developer.

The point is that there still really isn't a central place for plugins to reside, and yet codex isn't the best place for this. --Ringmaster 17:21, 4 Jan 2005 (GMT)


Nice and nifty feature:

WARNING: This page is 37 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections.

This came up when editing the page. So obviously, if we take the wiki codex's word for it, this page is already way too long.

I'm working on a smarter - okay, abreviated method of doing this. Lorelle 21:20, 17 Feb 2005 (GMT)


After creating a new page, as mentioned above, to replace the Plugins page, which can be found at User:Lorelle/Plugins, I find there is another similar page at Managing Plugins. I've added more data, but some of it is redundant. I've added a "tutorial" (per above request) on how to download from the other sites, and some other items.
Check it out and compare it to Managing Plugins and let me know what's next.
Lorelle 22:47, 17 Feb 2005 (GMT)


wp-plugins.net is toast

I clicked on the link at the bottom of the page for wp-plugins.net and it comes up account suspended. We need to verify this and get rid of this link if this is true.

Also, most of these link to...well, nothing. An edit page in the codex. Shouldn't they be linked to the repository pages?

Just another nag from your friendly editing nagger....Lorelle 04:16, 13 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Dr. Dave has made no mention of wp-plugins.net being down, so he probably just went over his bandwidth limit. As for the plugins here, I was working on adding links and product info pages based on the Wiki, but all my changes were lost somehow (never even made it into the page history). I haven't had a free day to pick it up again, but you're welcome to. Linking to the Repository would probably be the most logical thing to do. -MacManX
wp-plugins.net is back up now. His host pulled the plug after some referrer spammer did a mini-DoS and overloaded his database server. Needless to say, referrer spam will be the subject of his next plugin. :-) — morganiq 07:01, 13 Feb 2005 (GMT)
I've added a bold note about the page being unfinished and pretty much copy/pasted the short section about finding plugins at wp-plugins.org and wp-plugins.net to the top of the article. That should do for right now. -MacManX

Thanks for checking on all that! Lorelle 07:55, 13 Feb 2005 (GMT)


New Look

Excellent on the new look! Did you get a chance to check out my "article" on User:Lorelle/Plugins (revisions to what was here)? If it doesn't apply any more, let me know and I'll delete it. Saves space and confusion.

Also, I'd like to see the list of Plugin categories in a list rather than just a column of names. Maybe grouped better like:

Administration

  • Admin Tools
  • Anti-spam
  • Comments
  • Meta
  • Restriction
  • Statistics
  • Syntax Highlighting
  • Syndication
  • Tweaking

Design, Layout and Styles

  • Archive
  • Styles
  • Calendar - Event
  • Navigation
  • Randomness

Graphics, Video, and Sound

  • Audio - Mood
  • Images

Posts

  • Posts - Editing
  • Posts - Formatting
  • Posts - Miscellaneous

Links

  • Links

Odds and Ends

  • Miscellaneous
  • Weather

Outside Information

  • Del.icio.us

Lorelle 23:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've reorganized the plugins based on your wonderful suggestion. Thanks! -MacManX
I cleaned up your fantastic revision of my wonderful suggestion....oh, here we go again smearing kudos everywhere - get out the broom....to make them into lists, easier to read. Thanks! Lorelle 23:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A page per plugin?

Martin Cleaver had created a page for the WPMU Random Blog. This led to the following

I'd like to suggest that we move this (WPMU Random Blog) information onto the WPMUDev page, ot at least move to be a child of that page. Thoughts? cori(talk) 13:12, 9 Sep 2006 (GMT)

Ok... why? :) This plugin is a concept, and as such deserves its own page. It could be linked to from the WPMUDev.org page, but then we have links in both WPMUDev and on Codex. I've classified it as a WPMU Plugin User:MartinCleaver 9 Sep 2006

I just don't think that there's enough meat to the details to warrant its own page. Classifying it in the WPMUPlugin category is something, I guess, but a one-liner like this could as easily start out as a portion of an established page (say WPMUPlugins) and then get its own page if more detail is required. A page with a single line of detail in it doesn't seem worth it to me. It's also out of keeping with the style of the rest of the Codex, where items with lieelt bits of detail are elements on a larger page. Take a look at Del.icio.us plugins as an example.

I'd suggest making the WPMUPlugins page I mentioned above. It could even be a child of Plugins. Then add the detail from this page to that one. If enough MU plugins start to be added we could break them into child pages like Plugins. If a particular plugin requires extensive description it could then receive its own page.

cori 9 Sep 2006

Ok. Over time I've become convinced that the name of wiki pages is the most significant aspects as it serves as an entry point and identity: people most readily find a page by its name.

So to me the Del.icio.us plugins page is a category of multiple plugins, and would be best served by a set of pages, one per named plugin plus one for the category.

This way a plugin can appear in the category list for both WPMU and regular WP. (and indeed, categories can be used to indicate many aspects of state).

Anyhow, if that's not how things are currently done here, then its a broader discussion that I'd like to take to a wider audience.

Having WPMU in Codex creates new opportunities for the community to extend its reasoning, but it also creates the need for new pathways, and I think we will achieve a better knowledge base if we consider and incorporate any architectural changes needed.

--MartinCleaver 13:57, 10 Sep 2006 (GMT)
Got to agree with Cori almost completely (i.e. "not enough meat" and "out of keeping with the style of the rest of the Codex"). Only, I'm not sure WPMU_Plugin should be a Category.
MichaelH (talk) 17:31, 10 Sep 2006
I appreciate that using categories for those is out of the style of the rest of Codex... but I think that the nature (WP) Plugin and WPMU Plugin is one of "category" and that using categories would serve in this new situation where two projects share the same components and there is benefit in having conversation flow between them.
MartinCleaver 18:36, 10 Sep 2006 (GMT)
To clarify, my comment regarding the category was not a suggestion, but instead a statement that MartinCleaver's action in assigning it a category was potentially a step in the right direction. My feeling is that a WPMU category is (for now, at least) quite sufficient and that a WPMU Plugins page and WPMU Widgets pages should be created along the lines of the existing Plugins pages. Consistency in documentation is important, and Codex has an established style. I think the benefits of consistency far outweigh what I see as minimal advantages of pages with names specific to a given plugin.
cori(talk) 02:46, 14 Sep 2006 (GMT)
If plugins developed for WPMU only work for WPMU then detailing them in WPMU_Plugin_Compatibility would seem to suffice. But if a Plugin works for both sets of software, then it should be listed in one of the subsections of the Plugins pages.
MichaelH (talk) 17:31, 10 Sep 2006
  • Writing compatibility as a comment in the text may have disadvantages, arising from not being able to aggregate status automatically the same way as you can if the wiki can process the relationship e.g.
    • statements of compaibility written in text are likely to be stated in inconsistent ways, or be omitted completely.
    • it would likely not be possible count status (how many are / are not compatible, in which categories (e.g. Del.icio.us) have/have not been served for WPMU),
    • that plugin authors would not know to make their plugin compatible if don't see their plugin listed in an WPMU_Plugin incompatible list.
MartinCleaver 18:36, 10 Sep 2006 (GMT)
Here, I believe a separate page for WPMU plugins makes the most sense. Many (most?) plugins work for both, but I suspect more and more people are going to be looking specifically for information about MU. Having a page that details plugins with respect to MU makes them easier to find than burying them within the existing WP plugins pages. If that means a plugin has 2 entries, so be it; those interested in the WPMU compatibility of a given plugin will work to ensure the accuracy of the MU docs, and those interested in the WP side will do the same.
cori(talk) 02:46, 14 Sep 2006 (GMT)
Along the same lines, I'd suggest the content of the articles, WPMU List All Blogs Widget, WPMU List All Postings Widget, and WPMU List New Blogs Widget, be merged into WPMU_Widgets, and then deleted.
MichaelH (talk) 17:31, 10 Sep 2006
  • Widgets are an interesting case.
    • Some are on trac.mu.wordpress.org, but 1) only drmike can edit that and 2) it is hard to share text with the content on codex.
    • The rest are on [[WPMUDev.org] but that suffers because only the original author can make changes to contributed widgets, and as detailed on that page the facilities could be better.
    • Maybe wp-plugins.org would be the best place for widgets? Preventing people from contributing changes means everyone depends on the central authors, and excludes broader collaboration opportunities.
MartinCleaver 18:36, 10 Sep 2006 (GMT)
The argument of having WPMU in Codex is an old one.
Can you elaborate? --MartinCleaver 18:36, 10 Sep 2006 (GMT)
When the first WPMU articles (August 22, 2006) appeared, I wondered why WPMU in Codex when there doesn't even seem to be a link to Codex at mu.wordpress.org and clearly as is stated in Talk:WordPressMU, one of the main developers doesn't believe WPMU should be part of Codex.
MichaelH (talk) 17:31, 10 Sep 2006 (GMT)
There was no follow-up to the last response. Can we find out why Matt said he didn't want information about WPMU on Codex? The WPMU Forums have many disadvantages compared to a wiki for software development --MartinCleaver 18:36, 10 Sep 2006 (GMT)
That discussion is also nearly a year old, and in the intervening time matt has been making contribution to the WPMU core and MU has reached a 4th release candidate, so I suspect matt's viewpoint may have changed.
cori(talk) 02:46, 14 Sep 2006 (GMT)

Relationship to wordpress.org/extend/plugins?

I'm new to helping out with the Codex and don't understand how the pages in this section are interrelated with the plugins listed at extend/plugins at wordpress.org. Converting2wp 18:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Not related...

In response to your question about the relationship of this Plugins list to extend/plugins... they are not related. This is a separate repository of plugins. See the list at the top of the Plugins page for a list of all sorts of plugin repositories. jhodgdon 20:35, 26 Jun 2007 (UTC)

Removing the list - not a wise move?

I understand the logic of not having another plugins list and rather linking to the "official" plugins repository... however the extend/plugins on wp.org doesn't have them structured by functionality; for example, you cannot find all the translation/language plugins previously listed here. That's a huge loss for non-English or multilingual bloggers...

Moshu 15:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll 2nd that. It was enough of a loss with the themes, but the plugins being demolished is quite a shame. But the gods supposedly have spoken, and who are we to question the gods? ;) MichaelH (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Check my logic here: some people don't want to maintain the plugins list, so it was decided that the list should be deleted, and it was. Deleted it, I mean.
The list was declared as not authoritative. (The proper thing to do.) It linked to ancillary topics such as Plugins / WordPress Widgets. (Ain't the fractal nature of Wiki grande?!) But it was deleted simploy because the authoritative document exists.
Do I have that just about right? Perhaps it needed to be linked more assertively to the authoritative documents ... no biggie. Because the fact remains that Wiki exist to allow people to participate as they see fit, out of the sheer and glorious goodness of their hearts. But the work here was considered in some way offensive.
Have I got that about right?
(I'm reading this in context; Support threads are closed when /someone/ decides they're old ... regardless that the issue is unresolved, regardless that they're still active. Parenthetically: I brought up the matter of tradition and culture with one of the reliable wiki-gnomes and he professed no conception of what I was talking about. That, IMNSHO, is a dangerous lacuna.)
p.s. I began this by looking through the discussion to see, well, the discussion behind deleting the list. I found none. But in article history I found this: "Thought this was done already. Removing the Plugin lists per July 2006 decision and activation of new repository" --16 January 2008 ... so a decision from nearly 2 years ago was imposed.
Tell me, please, someone, how it that methodology described? I mean, if I was going to map that out using BPM?
--bentrem 22:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't answer questions as to why the list was dropped. I was not party to that discussion. But to respond to your assumptions, if the argument is the plugins list was not authoritative, I don't see how Extend replaces it. It's the official repository for WordPress plugins and I have no problem there (a good case can be made for it), but it's nowhere close to an authoritative list or directory. Also, if it was because the list was getting long in the tooth with too many dead links, out-of-date plugins, etc. and not enough eyeballs able to keep things in check, just give Extend another year...
Anyway I've brought this all up on the docs list and pretty much got shot down. I'll harp on if there's a ground swell of dissatisfaction on the decision, but few of us seemed bothered much by it.
One final note: I find myself passing over the occasional support forums topic asking about some class of plugins; with the list it was easy to drop a link or two to it, but now... I guess I should be happy. Less work for me! --Kaf 07:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)